The sacrificial son Ishmael or Isaac

1. The Sacrificial Son - Ishmael or Isaac
(Ismail or Ishaq)?
By Ebrahim Saifuddin
CONTENTS
Introduction
Does it Matter who the Sacrificial Son was?
Does it really make the Bible Superior?
So who was the Sacrificial Son?
Evidence from Concerned Verses
Other Places in the Quran
More Evidence
Evidence from Basic Logic
How did the Concept of Isaac being the Sacrificial
Son Arise?
Deception by Christian Missionaries
Does the Bible say it was Isaac?
Bible Says Hagar was Abraham’s Wife
Bible Describes the Relationship between Abraham
and Sarah
CONCLUSION

2. Introduction
In the early traditions there seems to be a difference of opinion among some Muslims as
to which son of Abraham was supposed to be sacrificed. There were some who held the
opinion that it was Isaac who was to be sacrificed by Abraham. This view of theirs
coincided with the one presented in the Bible. Certain Christian missionaries, when they
found out about this difference of opinion, have tried to play this up to prove that it was
indeed Isaac who was sacrificed even according to Islam and that the sacrifice of Ishmael
is just a tale created by the Muslims later on. They also conclude that because the
sacrificial son is not mentioned by name in the Quran and that the place of sacrifice is
not mentioned by name hence the Bible is superior.
Does it Matter who the Sacrificial Son was?
It is a fact that there seems to be a difference of opinion among people but this difference
of opinion does not prove that the Quran is not a Word of God nor does it even remotely
prove that the Bible is superior to the Quran. Even if for a moment and for argument’s
sake we agree that Isaac was indeed the one who was the sacrificial son, lets analyze if
that makes the Bible superior in any way. Muslims believe that some parts of the Word of
God exists in the Bible hence if this information is correct in the Bible it makes no
difference to the historical evidence and the Quranic stand that the Bible has been
corrupted over time and that the Quran acts as a guardian over the Bible.
To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before
it, and guarding it in safety. – [Quran 5:48]
What is important in the story is not who was sacrificed but the moral of the story.
Whether it was Ismail or Ishaq, is not as much relevant as the missionaries would want a
layman Muslim to believe and the evidence for this exists in the Christian argument that
earlier there remained a difference of opinion among Muslims regarding this issue.
Although there was a difference, that changed not the lesson derived from the story nor
did it change the Islamic Shariah derived from the Quran and Hadith. Additionally it
certainly did not change what Islam truly is or the fact that Islam is the true religion and
Quran is the preserved Word of God or that Prophet Muhammad (saw) is indeed a
Messenger of Allah (swt).
Does it really make the Bible Superior?
As far as the missionaries going to the extent that this makes the Bible a revelation that is
much superior, lets analyze the two stories as in the Bible and the Quran and see which
of the two is indeed superior in essence. We will take a look at the conversation between
the father and the son as seen in the Bible and the Quran just before the sacrifice:
“And Isaac said to his father Abraham, ‘My father!’ And he said, ‘Here am I, my
son.’ He said, ‘Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt
offering?’
Abraham said, ‘God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my
son.’ So they went both of them together.” – [Genesis 22:7-8]

3. Notice in the above verses that Abraham lied to his son regarding the sacrifice saying
that God will provide the lamb for the sacrifice. This means that this story does not set
for us the best moral example. Did Abraham know that Isaac would rebel or run away if
he would tell him that it is him who is to be sacrificed? Was Isaac not going to submit
himself to the Will of God? Some Christians might argue that according to these verses
Abraham already knew that God will provide the lamb hence he was not telling a lie. The
problem then is that if Abraham knew that God would replace Isaac with a lamb then
how does this serve to be a test for Abraham. Let’s not forget that in Genesis 22:1 it states
that this was a test for Abraham.
Here is the story as seen in the Quran regarding the conversation between the father and
the son:
“Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: ‘O
my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!’
(The son) said: ‘O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if
Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!’” – [Quran 37:102]
We find Abraham telling his son truthfully that he is to be sacrificed and wishes to also
know his opinion. The son is found to be as much a person who submits to the Will of
God as Abraham and tells his father that he is willing to be obedient to the command of
God and will be patient and forbearing.
A comparison indeed shows which revelation is superior. This in itself is sufficient to
shake the foundations of the missionary conclusion that because Bible mentions the
name and Quran does not hence Bible is superior – A conclusion that is at best amusing.
So who was the Sacrificial Son?
The Christian missionaries go on quoting from Tabari, Qurtubi, Tanwir al-Miqbas min
Tafsir Ibn Abbas and Tafsir al-Jalalayn among few other sources like Muhammad
Hukayle’s book “The Life of Muhammad” and a quote from an audio recording of a
speech by Hamza Yusuf to prove that there was a difference of opinion among the people
regarding who the sacrificial son really was. Their effort is futile and serves no purpose.
Quoting people to prove that there was a difference of opinion does not prove that the
one who was sacrificed was indeed Isaac or that the Quran is not the Word of God but
the Bible is. While they try to emphasize those who said that it was Isaac, they
conveniently overlook those who say that it was Ishmael.
It is pointless to go on listing the people who thought that the sacrificial son was Ishmael
or those who thought that it was Isaac in order to prove who the sacrificial son really was
especially when the lists of names overlap where one name is recorded to have stated
both the opinions. To find out which son was to be sacrificed one needs to analyze the
data present.
Evidence from Concerned Verses

4. The verses in the Quran that talk about this incident are from Surah As-Saaffat (Chapter
37). The concerned verses are 37:100-112 and below they are listed along with a verse to
verse explanation:
"O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!" – [37:100]
Here we find Abraham praying to God to grant him a son who will be a righteous person.
Abraham did not have any sons yet and he is praying to God for a son.
So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear. – [37:101]
And God says that He gave him the good news of a son whom God describes as
‘Haleema’ – The patient forbearing one.
Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O
my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!"
(The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if
Allah so wills one practicing Patience and Constancy!" – [37:102]
This is the verse which talks about the dream which Abraham received and the son
proves to be the one who is patient (‘As-Sabireen’).
So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah), and he had laid him
prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
We called out to him "O Abraham!
"Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do
right.
For this was obviously a trial-
And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
"Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
For he was one of our believing Servants. – [37:103-111]
These nine verses only relate to us that both the father and the son had submitted their
will to Allah (swt) i.e. they were true Muslims. Abraham passed the test and the sacrifice
was ransomed. Allah (swt) then assures the believers that He beyond a shadow of doubt
rewards the righteous.
And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet, - one of the Righteous. –
[37:112]
This verse is important in order to determine if the son could be Isaac. After the
sacrificial scenario God then later gave Abraham the good news of the birth of Isaac
whom God describes to be a prophet and no Muslim denies that indeed Isaac was a
prophet.
More importantly we see that the son who was supposed to be sacrificed was referred to
in the Quran as the patient one (‘As-Sabireen’). The same description is given to Ishmael
by name in another verse of the Quran and is not used for Isaac:

5. And (remember) Isma'il, Idris, and Zul-kifl, all (men) of constancy and patience
(‘As-Sabireen’). – [Quran 21:85]
Ishmael was among the ones who were patient, the exact trait by which the sacrificial son
is described. This further strengthens the argument that it is Ishmael who was the
sacrificial son and not Isaac.
Qurtubi, in his Tafsir on Chapter 37 Verse 102, adds that the people who advocated it to
be Ishmael, in addition to evidence from Chapter 21 Verse 85, also gave evidence from
Surah Maryam (Chapter 19) verse 54 which describes Ishmael as the one who is true to
his promise. They state that Ishmael was true to his promise to Abraham regarding him
being patient while he is sacrificed:
ْ‫اِﺣﺘﺞ ﻣﻦْ ﻗَﺎ َ إ ﱠ ُ إِﺳ َﺎ ِﯿﻞ : ِﺄن اﻟﱠﮫ ﺗ َﺎﻟَﻰ وَﺻﻔَﮫ ِﺎﻟﺼﺒْﺮ ُون إِﺳْ َﺎق ﻓِﻲ ﻗَﻮْﻟﮫ ﺗ َﺎَﻰ : " َإِﺳ َﺎ ِﯿﻞ َِدْ ِﯾﺲ َ َا اﻟﻜﻔْﻞ ُﻞ ﻣﻦ‬
ِ ّ ‫و ْﻤ ﻋ وإ ر وذ ْ ِ ﻛ‬ ‫َﻌ ﻟ‬ ‫ﺤ‬ ‫َ ُﺑ ﱠ ِد‬ ‫ﺑَ ﱠ ﻠ َﻌ‬ ‫ْ َ ﱠ َ ل ِﻧﮫ ْﻤ ﻋ‬
[ 54 : ‫اﻟ ﱠﺎ ِ ِﯾ َ " ] اﻟْﺄﻧﺒ َﺎء : 58 [ و ُﻮ ﺻﺒْﺮه ََﻰ اﻟﺬﺑْﺢ , وَوَﺻﻔَ ُ ﺑِﺼﺪْق اﻟْﻮﻋْﺪ ِﻲ ﻗَﻮْﻟﮫ : " إ ﱠﮫ َﺎنَ َﺎ ِق ا ْﻟﻮﻋْﺪ " ] ﻣَﺮ َﻢ‬
‫ْﯾ‬ َ ‫ِﻧ ُ ﻛ ﺻ د‬ ‫َﮫ ِ ِ َ ﻓ‬ ‫َھ َ َ ﻋﻠ ﱠ‬ ‫َ ْ ِﯿ‬ ‫ﺼ ﺑﺮ ﻦ‬
ِ ‫; ِﺄ ﱠ ُ و َ َ أ َﺎه ﻣﻦ ﻧﻔْﺴﮫ اﻟﺼﺒْﺮ ََﻰ اﻟﺬﺑْﺢ ﻓَﻮَ ﱠﻰ ﺑ‬
‫ﻓ ِﮫ‬ ‫ﱠ ﻋﻠ ﱠ‬ َ ْ ِ ُ ‫ﻟَﻧﮫ َﻋﺪ َﺑ‬
Other Places in the Quran
Now let us analyze another place in the Holy Quran where Allah (swt) gave glad-tidings
of Isaac. This is found in Surah Hud (Chapter 11) verse 71:
And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings
of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob. – [Quran 11:71]
Now God had given the glad-tidings of a son and also a grandson from Isaac. Hence if
God already promised to give them Isaac and a son from Isaac, why would God ask
Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. This would then mean that Abraham knew that Isaac will be
replaced in which case this couldn’t possibly be a test for Abraham.
Ibn Jarir responded to the evidence from 11:71 by saying that God could have asked for
the sacrifice after the birth of Isaac. This argument is quite weak as seen from the
evidence present in the Quran. The evidence is there in 37:102 which states that as soon
as the boy was of the age to work with his father, Abraham saw the dream. It does not say
that as soon as the boy was married and had a child called Jacob, Abraham saw the
dream. Moreover when we look at the Quranic verses over all especially the context of
the verses in Chapter 37 (as explained above) we see that this was not a possibility and
that the sacrifice incident took place even before Isaac was born. The Bible also confirms
that Abraham was asked to sacrifice his only child. I will explain this point later on in
this paper. Qurtubi in the tafsir of Chapter 37 verse 102 mentions Ibn Abbas as among
the ones who advocated the sacrificial son to be Isaac. Later on in the tafsir of the same
verse Qurtubi mentions Ibn Abbas as an advocate of Ishmael. So here there is a
difference of opinion on the opinion of Ibn Abbas as well. This point will also be
explained later on in this paper.
More Evidence
During Hajj, Muslims were taught by the Prophet Muhammad (saw) himself, to stone 3
pillars, each at a distance from one another. These pillars represent Satan who tried to
mislead Abraham from performing the sacrifice. Abraham did not give in to the evil
whispers of Satan and pelted him with pebbles. Isaac was never in Mecca and thus could
not have possibly been the son whom Abraham was taking for the sacrifice. The only son

6. of Abraham who was in Mecca was Ishmael and thus logic only proves it that it was
Ishmael who was taken for the sacrifice and Satan tried to mislead Abraham. It would be
illogical to assume that Abraham set foot from Mecca to go to sacrifice Isaac and instead
of Satan trying to mislead Abraham when he would be closer to his son; he tried in
Mecca and then gave up for the rest of the lengthy journey. It is easier to mislead a
person when he is close to whom he loves and when some time has passed by. Initially it
would be harder to mislead Abraham because he just saw the vision and was acting upon
it. Later as time would pass by it would be easier to mislead the person. Hence it would
only be logical for Satan to try to mislead Abraham when he was near Isaac.
Qurtubi also quotes a narration which is as follows:
“Al-Asmaai said: I asked Aba-Amro Ibn Al-Alaa about the sacrificed, then he
said: O, Asmaai! Where is your brain? Since when was Isaac in Mecca? Ishmael
was in Mecca, and he is the one who built the house of Allah (Al-Kaaba) with his
father and the sacrificial site in Mecca.” – [Rough English Translation of
Qurtubi’s Tafsir on Chapter 37 Verse 102]
Further Qurtubi also quotes a narration from Prophet Muhammad (saw) as well which is
as follows:
And it was transferred from Prophet Muhammad (saw) that he said: "The
sacrificed was Ishmael". – [Rough English Translation of Qurtubi’s Tafsir on
Chapter 37 Verse 102]
Moreover, Maududi writes with reference to Ibn Kathir the following in his tafsir
regarding this issue:
Authentic traditions confirm that the horns of the ram which was slaughtered as
a ransom for the Prophet Ishmael remained preserved in the Holy Kabah till the
time of Hadrat Abdullah bin Zubair. Afterwards when Hajjaj bin Yusuf besieged
Ibn Zubair in the Kabah and demolished the Kab'bah, the horns also were
destroyed. Both Ibn Abbas and Amir Shabi; testify that they had seen the horns in
the Kab'ah (IbnKathir). This is a proof of the fact that the event of the sacrifice
had taken place in Makkah and not in Syria, and concerned the Prophet Ishmael.
That is why a relic of it had been preserved in the Holy Kab'ah built by the
Prophets Abraham and Ishmael. – [Maududi Vol. 4]
However as I previously stated, my approach to this topic is not to list the sayings quoted
by Qurtubi or Tabari or others in favor of Ishmael but rather an analysis of the verses in
the Quran and using logic. By making a list of people in favor of Ishmael against the list
of people in favor of Isaac would not prove anything but the fact that there was a
difference of opinion. The point of this paper is not to prove that there could have been a
difference of opinion but to determine the sacrificial son’s identity.
Evidence from Basic Logic
It is known that Abraham did not have a child due to which he was pretty upset. He was
quite old now and still he had no children. This is very depressing for people even today.
Couples try various methods even today to be able to reproduce and become parents.
They will try in vitro fertilization and some who may not be able to afford or may not
have access to such technology would even opt to adopt a child. Childlessness can indeed

7. be very depressing. At such a point when Abraham had his first born son, Ishmael, the
joy and happiness would be beyond measures. Then God asking Abraham to sacrifice
that child is truly a test of submission. It would be heartbreaking for any of us to be told
to sacrifice our first born who was born after many years of marriage. This would be the
true test and as the whole idea of sacrificial son was to test Abraham, there could be no
better test than for him to sacrifice Ishmael, the first born.
Hence even if we use basic logic it proves that it is only logical for the sacrificial son to be
Ishmael as opposed to Isaac.
How did the Concept of Isaac being the Sacrificial Son
Arise?
Ibn Kathir gives the answer to this question which many may ask. He states that all the
sayings in which Isaac has been mentioned as the sacrificial son are related through K’ab
Al-Ahbar. He became a Muslim during the time of Umar (ra) after listening to Chapter 4
Verse 47 of the Quran. He would relate from the Jewish and Christian traditions. Other
Muslims listened to this and got confused regarding the truth with the falsehood from
K’ab Al-Ahbar.
Ibn Kathir states regarding K’ab Al-Ahbar:
Al-Bukhari recorded that Humayd bin `Abdur-Rahman heard Mu`awiyah talking
to a group of Quraysh in Al-Madinah. He mentioned Ka`b Al-Ahbar, and said:
"He was one of the most truthful of those who narrated from the People of the
Book, even though we found that some of what he said might be lies.'' I say, this
means that some of what he said could be classified linguistically as lies, but he
did not intend to lie, because he was narrating from manuscripts which he
thought were good, but they contained fabricated material, because they did not
have people who were so conscientious in memorizing the Scriptures by heart as
the people of this great Ummah.
Maulana Maududi takes this a step further in addressing the same question. He states:
This thing is further explained by a tradition from Muhammad bin Kab al-Kurzi
He says that once during his presence the question whether the son offered as a
sacrifice was the Prophet Isaac or the Prophet Ishmael arose before Hadrat Umar
bin Abdul Aziz. Among them at that time was a person who had been a Jewish
scholar but had become a sincere Muslim afterwards. He said, "O Commander of
the Faithful! By God it was Ishmael, and the Jews know it, but claim on account
of their jealousy of the Arabs that it was the Prophet Isaac." (Ibn Jarir). When the
two things are put side by side, it becomes evident that actual it was the Jewish
propaganda that spread among the Muslims who have always been unbiased in
scholastic literary matters, a large number of them accepted the statements of the
Jews as a historic truth, which they presented as historical traditions with
reference to the ancient scriptures, and did not realize that these were based on
prejudice instead of knowledge. – [Maududi Vol. 4]

8. Christian missionaries have been trying desperately to prove that Islamic sources attest
that it was Isaac who was to be sacrificed. However we can now see that they have failed
miserably in trying to manipulate the Islamic sources.
Deception by Christian Missionaries
The Christian missionaries have tried to prove a couple of points which are already
refuted in the beginning of this paper. Their methodology is to quote only those saying
which suggest that Isaac was the one to be sacrificed. This does not prove anything but in
fact proves their deceptive ways of trying to prove their point. Had they been honest and
quoted the arguments for Ishmael, the readers would have noticed that one name is
quoted in one place to be talking about Isaac being the sacrificial son and in the other
place of the same source that same name is quoted advocating that Ishmael was the
sacrificial son. This alone would be sufficient to ring a bell in any readers mind. Why are
the same people in one tradition quoting one name and in another quoting the other
name?
The missionaries have quoted Yusuf Ali’s commentary regarding 37:102 as follows:
"At what stage in Abraham's history did this occur? ... It was obviously after his
arrival in the Land of Canaan and after Ishmael had given up years of discretion.
Was it before or after the building of the Kabah...? There are no data on which
this question can be answered. But we may suppose it was before that event, and
that event may itself have been commemorative."
Then they try to conclude that there is no data from pre-Islamic period or archaeology
which confirms that Abraham and Ishmael were ever in Mecca thus trying to imply that
they were never in Mecca. This argument is again a deception being created by the
Christians. Yusuf Ali states that there is no data regarding the time of the sacrifice of
Ishmael. Even if we take the comments of Yusuf Ali to be cent percent true, it does not in
any way suggest that they never were in Mecca. Moreover even if we for a moment
believe that there is no data of the existence of Ishmael and Abraham in Mecca, does that
mean that the Quran is a false book? If so, then I would like the Christians to prove
archaeologically that there was a man named Adam and a woman named Eve who
walked on this earth. If they fail then they should consider the Bible to be an invalid
book. This deceptive methodology of theirs is mirthful.
Does the Bible say it was Isaac?
The answer to this question depends on which Bible one is referring to. If we are
referring to the corrupted version which the Christians have then yes it mentions Isaac
by name. If we are talking about the actual revelations of God, then it does not mention
Isaac.
Evidence? It’s in the same corrupted version of the Bible.
The Bible mentions this story in the following verse:

9. He said, "Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land
of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of
which I shall tell you." – [Genesis 22:2]
According to biblical account, Ishmael was the first born son of Abraham. Also after
quite a number of years Isaac was born so Ishmael was the only son to Abraham all this
time. Thus when the Bible says “your only son” it obviously refers to Ishmael. However
human intervention which is rooted in the history of the Bible caused the change of
name. The Hebrew word used for only is ‘yachiyd’ (pronounced: yaw-kheed) which as
defined by “Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions” means ‘only, one, solitary,
unique and only begotten son’. This without a doubt proves that the Bible is referring to
the only begotten son and only Ishmael held this status of being the only begotten son of
Abraham till the time Isaac was born. Note that the verse tells Abraham to sacrifice his
only son and thus refers to Ishmael. If it would have told Sarah to sacrifice her only son
then the Christian stand of it being Isaac could have held some ground.
Of course the Christians or the Jews will not accept that and state that Hagar was never a
wife to Abraham and was just to cohabit with him.
Bible Says Hagar was Abraham’s Wife
Let’s analyze the verse first which is related to the issue of the relationship between
Hagar (Hajra or Hajira in Arabic) and Abraham:
And Sarai, Abram's wife, took her slave-girl, Hagar, the Egyptian, and gave her to
her husband Abram to be his wife – [Genesis 16:3]
Note the verse says that Hagar was given to Abraham to be his wife.
The Hebrew word used there is “'ishshah” which is pronounced as ‘ish-shaw’.
This word has been defined by “Brown-Driver-Briggs’ Hebrew Definitions” as the
following:
1) Woman, wife, female
1a) woman (opposite of man)
1b) wife (woman married to a man)
1c) female (of animals)
1d) each, every (pronoun)
So we can see that this word means “wife” in the literal sense and not in any other sense
that the Christian missionaries would like people to believe. Hence their claim that
Hagar was not married to Abraham and thus Ishmael was a bastard crumbles down.
Let us now take a look at “Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible” and see
what this famous commentator of the Bible has to say regarding the relationship of
Abraham and Hagar:
We have here the marriage of Abram to Hagar, who was his secondary wife.
Herein, though some excuse may be made for him, he cannot be justified, for
from the beginning it was not so; and, when it was so, it seems to have

10. proceeded from an irregular desire to build up families for the speedier peopling
of the world and the church.
Or let’s look at “Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible” which states:
And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar - and gave her to her husband - to be his
wife - There are instances of Hindoo women, when barren, consenting to their
husbands marrying a second wife for the sake of children; and second marriages
on this account, without consent, are very common.
This pretty much sums up what the relationship was between Hagar and Abraham. Truly
she was his legitimate wife and thus Ishmael was a legitimate son. Ishmael without a
doubt was the first born son of Abraham and the only son who held the position of being
the “only begotten son” for many years till Isaac was born. So it becomes obvious that the
insertion of the name Isaac in Genesis 22:2 is indeed the works of human intervention.
It is also important to note that while certain Christian missionaries wish to claim that
Hagar was just a concubine, there is not even one instance in the entire Old Testament
where this word “'ishshah” is used to mean a concubine. This is conjecture by certain
Christian missionaries who have become helpless and thus need to use deception to save
their face.
Bible Describes the Relationship between Abraham and Sarah
Generally Christians claim that according to the Bible Sarah was Abraham’s wife.
However the biblical side of the story shows a different aspect to it as well. In Genesis
Chapter 12, Abraham and Sarah went to Egypt and there Abraham feared that the
Egyptians will kill him if they found out that Sarah was his wife. So he tells Sarah to tell
them that she is his sister. Here we see that Abraham feared for his life and thus opted to
lie regarding this. Christians might claim that he lied because he feared for his life and
for argument’s sake we will be gracious enough not to make this an issue. However the
strange part happens later on when Sarah was taken into the Pharaoh’s house and
Jehovah sent a plague in the house of the Pharaoh and it affected the Pharaoh as well.
Pharaoh then asks Abraham why he did not tell him that she was his wife. Anyways the
Pharaoh lets them go and they leave the place.
A similar incident is seen in Genesis Chapter 20 where due to the same reasons as in
Chapter 12, Abraham says that Sarah is his sister. Abimelech took Sarah and that night
he had a dream to return Sarah to Abraham for she is his wife otherwise Abimelech will
die. Abimelech asks the same question to Abraham and Abraham gives the reason that
he feared his life. But in addition to that he adds further:
And yet she really is my sister, daughter of my father; only not daughter of my
mother. And she became my wife. – [Genesis 20:12]
Abraham explained that Sarah was his half sister. Would that not make Isaac a child
born out of incest? The Christian missionaries spend time calling Ishmael an illegitimate
son when the relationship as described by the Bible is legitimate but they conveniently
do not inform their readers about the relationship between Abraham and Sarah as
described by the Bible itself. If Ishmael is not counted as a ‘real son’ to Abraham because
the missionaries say that the relationship between Abraham and Hagar was illegitimate

11. then Isaac cannot be counted as a ‘real son’ either as he was born out of incest according
to the biblical sources.
Now some missionaries might claim that this was lawful at that time by the Law of God.
If it was lawful, then if we accept for a minute their wild theory that Hagar was only for
the purpose to reproduce with, then why is it so hard for them to accept that at that time
this could be a legitimate relationship by the Law of God at that time?
However as we have seen, Hagar was a legitimate wife of Abraham thus destroying the
missionary argument that Ishmael cannot be the first born. Ishmael was indeed the first
born and undeniably the one who was the sacrificial son.
CONCLUSION
In this detailed paper we analyzed the entire situation as seen in the Quran, the Bible
and in the early Islamic sources. In the end there remains no doubt that the sacrificial
son was no other than Ishmael. This is seen in the Quran and the Bible. The desperate
effort by the handful missionaries has been refuted in entirety and it is a time when
people should come towards and accept the preserved Word of God – Al-Quran.